Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudoreligion

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep (without clear consensus) as rewritten. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoreligion
I request that this be removed from VfD, as the article is substantially changed from when it was proposed for deletion, including making it NPOV and wiki-linked from articles referencing the term --LeFlyman 05:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

original reseach; opinion; NPOV; not an accepted theological or philosophical term; delete article ThaddeusFrye 07:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * yeah it's an opinionated article, i've tried to take some of that out, but i would agree that it probably isn't an accepted term. go on then, delete JiMternet 14:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Note, I've rewritten the article, as it does appear to have some useful encyclopedic basis. A quick Google of "pseudoreligion" reveals 1400 English language links; while "Pseudo-religion" has 8,500 (or possibly 10,400) English links, including:
 * an essay assignment for a 2001 Philosophy course ("Epistemology and Methodology") which asks, "What is "pseudo" about pseudo-science or pseudo-religion?";
 * this exhibition at the Swiss Institute of Contemporary Art which notes, "Jim Shaw's recent work has focused on inventing a new, pseudo-religion, O-ism"
 * From Santa Clara University's Markkula Center for Applied Ethics: "The Role of Religion in Global Ethical Leadership": "Any attempt to remove religion completely from public moral life ends up fostering some fairly virulent and irrational varieties of pseudo-religion that sneak in by the back door." (Professor of Political Science, Eric Hanson)
 * So it looks like "pseudo-religion" is in semi-common usage in multiple fields. --LeFlyman 06:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * delete original research and opinion Ashibaka (tock) 14:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * DELETE UNLESS YOU REWRITE THIS TO SHOW THAT ISLAM IS THE ONLY PSEUDORELIGION.STORM LEGION666 15:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * New user. mikka (t) 16:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * STORM LEGION666 has cast votes much like this one in seven vfd's (and done nothing else). -- BD2412 talk 16:27, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * I have reported this user for Vandalism in progress. Please remove this paragraph when problem solved. -Snorre/Antwelm 16:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * delete original research. not clearly established term, although it has its merits, mikka (t) 16:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep With major re-write and redirect to Pseudo-religion. There is some literature that appears to support the existence of the topic-- such as this newly translated book on history of Theosophy--but not exclusively as "Judeo-Christian mythology." What is here does look like original research, rather than factual. I believe what the editor was intending to write about was Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha rather than pseudo-religion. Better subjects under this topic might be, for example, (as mentioned) Theosophy, The Church of the Subgenius, Scientology, Marxism and Objectivism as "religions" --LeFlyman 18:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * As per my prior suggestion, I've gone ahead and made the first stab at a rewrite, excising all of the non-NPOV original material. It can be retooled within that context. Better? --LeFlyman 03:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, original research, irredeemable POV. --Angr/undefined 22:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep iff we can make it and somehow keep it NPOV. --Idont Havaname 00:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete original research. JamesBurns 05:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep LeFlyman's rewrite, which is NPOV and possibly useful. Frjwoolley 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOR. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 19:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.